“We are going to be hit” by al Qaeda nuclear device, said FBI director

As I learn from a writer who calls himself Martel Sobieskey (one heroic pseudonym wasn’t enough, he had to have two), FBI head Robert Mueller told Ron Kessler of Newsmax in May 2007 that al Qaeda is still seeking to acquire the ability to strike a U.S. city with a nuclear weapon. Not only that, but, Mueller added, “We are going to be hit at some point. It’s just a question of when and to what extent.”

Two reactions. First, Mueller just accepts that this is going to happen and that there’s nothing we can do about it. If that’s the way he feels, then he should be instantly fired (which I’ve been calling for since he first took office in 2001, as everything about him said he was a depressed, fearful bureaucrat, not a confident leader).

Second, if Mueller does believe that there’s no way we can stop a Muslim nuclear attack in America, why does he believe that? Being a liberal, as virtually everyone in the modern West is, Mueller would not put it this way, but the sine qua non of his certain prediction of a Muslim nuclear attack in America is the presence of approximately three million Muslims in America. As I first argued at FrontPage Magazine in 2004, if there were no Muslims in America, then there would be absolutely no possibility of a Muslim nuclear or other domestic WMD attack in America. And therefore the only way to make America safe from the threat of a domestic Muslim nuclear attack is to remove at least a large part of the Muslim population from America, at the very least, all active believers.

The policy being proposed is not a one-time, overnight deportation of all Muslims, but a multi-faceted, multi-stage process that would lead to the steady involuntary and voluntary departure of Muslims from this country, until the only ones remaining, if any remained, would be a small remnant of apostates and non-believers.

Martel Sobieskey also wants strong measures to protect us. He advocates the national registration of Muslims, along the lines of what the U.S. did with enemy aliens during World War II.

He writes:

The FBI boss nearly guarantees we will suffer a jihadist nuclear attack yet America remains paralyzed with self complacency and disbelief. Have we become a nation of sheep ready for the slaughter? The answer is yes; proven by our failure to enact the safeguards designed to protect us. What must be done? We need to immediately implement the 1940 Alien Registration Act (Smith Act), and the 1798 Alien Enemies Act thereby registering all Muslims living in the USA and placing them under intense scrutiny. This is no time to be polite, servile, or politically cowardly. We need to get the job done. According to Dr. Graham T. Allison of Harvard University: 500,000 killed would be the number of instant victims if a small (10 kiloton) nuke were set off in New York’s Times Square on a typical day. Dr. Allison gives the carnage a greater than 50% chance of happening.

… Registering Muslims will “throw a monkey wrench” into the jihadist plan greatly reducing the probability of an attack. Please think deeply do you want to stop a nuclear attack or not?…

Prior to World War II, a total of 4,741,971 aliens were registered in a period of 4 months, in order to uncover the enemies hiding within. President Roosevelt was prudent enough to make a “hot pursuit” of potential saboteurs. As a result, he successfully prevented internal attacks upon our homeland for the duration of WWII. Today, it is imperative we follow Roosevelt’s example and register every Muslim 14 years or older. Each must be required to submit their photo, finger prints, address, date and place of birth, physical description, occupation, employment history, arrest record, names of relatives in the USA and abroad, memberships in clubs, organizations, societies, and other pertinent data. The harshest penalties, for those who fail to register or lie, such as prison or deportation must necessarily apply….

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 requires that when any predatory incursion is attempted or threatened against the United States the President can make a public proclamation in order to single out and “round up the group” within which the enemies are hiding. This is exactly the course which needs to be pursued with the Muslim community today. It is a fact that the jihadists are hiding within our homeland and we must do whatever it takes to stop to them. It is well past time to “take off the gloves” and get down to the business of protecting ourselves. The noble adage—the price of freedom is eternal vigilance—has never been more relevant.

Sobieskey’s proposal sounds strong, even extreme, but the problem is, how would merely registering Muslims prevent them from carrying out terrorist attacks? They would still be here, still free to move about in our society. In World War II we were concerned about possible sedition, espionage, and sabotage by enemy aliens. Now we’re concerned about WMD attacks that could kill hundreds of thousands of people. World War II methods are not enough.

Also, Sobieskey acts as though registering aliens would cover all Muslims. He doesn’t seem to realize that many Muslims in the U.S. are not aliens but naturalized or natural born citizens, and therefore wouldn’t be covered by his plan at all.

Sobieskey continues:

One of the world’s richest men, insurance magnate, William [sic] Buffet believes a nuclear terrorist attack on American soil is going to occur. At an annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway he stated, “We’re going to have something of a major nuclear event in this country…It will happen—whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years…it’s virtually a certainty.”

I repeat: a Muslim nuclear attack in the United States is a virtual certainty only if Muslims are present in the U.S. If there were no Muslims present in the U.S., there would be zero chance of a Muslim nuclear attack in the U.S.

How can any rational, decent human being accept the inevitability of a nuclear attack on a U.S. city, and refuse even to consider the only way to make sure that such an attack does not happen? And since when have Muslims become so precious to us, that their continued presence among us is worth the nuclear destruction of one or more of our cities? Are we so precious to them? If, say, a population of white Americans were living in an Islamic land and concealing in their midst an unknown number of anti-Muslim terrorists, would the Muslims risk the destruction of their country, in order to leave us unmolested? The Muslims don’t even allow Christians to build churches and practice Christianity in Muslim lands, let alone to pose the slightest physical threat in Muslim lands.

- end of initial entry -

Clark Coleman writes:

One answer to your question as to how merely registering Muslims would stop an attack: It might send a signal that they are not welcome, reducing future immigration and prompting voluntary return of many of those already here.

LA replies:

Good point on advantages of registration … except it spells out a super security state.

Bob S. writes:

Mueller said, “We are going to be hit at some point. It’s just a question of when and to what extent.”

I.e., “If we don’t separate Muslims from ourselves, we are going to be hit at some point.”

I.e., “Don’t separate Muslims from ourselves, and be hit by a nuclear weapon. Or, separate Muslims from ourselves, and not be hit by a nuclear weapon.”

The choice seems clear. Only a suicidal liberal could prefer the first.

Mark Jaws writes:

Right now the only politically feasible course of action to deter an Islamic nuclear detonation on American soil is aggressively to infiltrate mosques, 7-11’s and airport taxi companies with counterterrorism agents. Anyone who can pass for Moslem should be recruited for this vital national security project.

December 12

Kevin O. writes:

You wrote in your entry about the Muslim nuclear threat that “If there were no Muslims present in the U.S., there would be zero chance of a Muslim nuclear attack in the U.S.” Unfortunately, even if all foreign-national Muslims were deported from the U.S., the threat is greater than a “zero chance”. Iran has recently conducted tests in which medium-range ballistic missiles were fired from the decks of ships in the Caspian Sea. The article here explains.

While I certainly think you’re correct that “separation” is a necessary condition, it may be insufficient.

I’ve been reading VFR for years, but this is my first communication with you. I hope to contribute a bit more in the future.

Thank you very much for VFR. You are performing an invaluable service.

LA replies:

Of course you’re right, but I underscored the point that I was talking about domestic Muslim terrorism, the fear of which requires our hyped up security, passing through barriers, conducting surveillance of U.S residents, and so on. The threat of a foreign attack is an entirely different thing, and would have to be met with entirely different measures..

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 11, 2008 05:18 PM | Send